AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00720 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
 
  
 
 _________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed to reflect 
9 June 2015 rather than 25 October 2015.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  initially  applied  for  TEB  on  9  June  2011;  however,  when 
reviewing his records in October 2011, he discovered that he did 
not have an ADSC reflecting the TEB.  After contacting AFPC, they 
notified him that he submitted his paperwork with an error.  They 
indicated  he  had  been  notified  of  the  error  in  July  2011; 
however, he never received the email.  An email of that magnitude 
would  have  received  his  immediate  attention  as  his  education 
benefits,  his  timeline  for  retirement,  and  the  possibility  of 
having  to  make  a  permanent  change  of  station  (PCS);  or  not, 
rested in this single email.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  an 
electronic submission confirmation from the Department of Defense 
(DoD) TEB webpage, dated 9 June 2011.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in 
the grade of major (O-4).   
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts,  extracted  from  the  applicant’s 
military service records, are reflected in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIT  recommends  denial.    DPSIT  states  that  based  on  the 
information reported in the TEB and counseling notes in the Right 
Now  Technology  (RNT)  by  the  Total  Force  Service  Center  (TFSC) 
personnel,  the  applicant  was  provided  with  instructions  and 

requirements  that  he  needed  to  accomplish  prior  to  his  TEB 
application being approved.  Specifically, that he needed to sign 
a  Statement  of  Understanding  (SOU)  agreeing  to  the  obligated 
service required to participate in the TEB option under the Post 
9/11  GI  Bill.    An  email  was  sent  on  5  July  2011  informing  the 
applicant that his application for TEB had expired because he had 
not signed an SOU.   
 
It  is  DPSIT’s  opinion  that  the  applicant’s  comment  that  he  did 
not receive the email is suspect because on 26 October 2011, he 
contacted  the  TFSC  and  indicated  that  his  request  for  TEB  had 
expired and what did he need to do to restart the process.  The 
only  way  the  applicant  knew  that  his  application  had  expired 
would have been through an email from the TFSC.   
 
On  27  October  2011,  the  applicant  initiated  the  process  of  the 
TEB using an SOU he signed on 26 October 2011.  His TEB benefits 
were approved on 28 October 2011.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He did not originally apply for TEB through the AFPC website.  He 
applied through the DoD website.  With the completion of transfer 
on this website, it was stated to expect contact from a service 
representative  concerning  the  commitment  for  the  transfer.    He 
wrongly assumed that this would be in the form of another ADSC 
form.    An  SOU  for  transfer  completion  was  not  explicitly 
mentioned.  It is not true that he knew his initial application 
had expired due to an email from TFSC, as contended by the Air 
Force OPR.  In October 2011, he reviewed his records and noticed 
that he had not incurred an ADSC for the Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB.  
He contacted the TFSC to inquire why, and it was at this point he 
learned  of  the  full  story  of  the  expired  application,  unsigned 
SOU,  and  the  single  notification  email.    He  believes  his  ADSC 
should be 9 June 2015 based on his original intent for the TEB 
and the fact that he did not receive an email concerning the SOU 
and  an  expired  TEB  application.    The  current  October  2015  ADSC 
has  the  potential  for  adverse  consequences  for  his  retirement 
date.  These consequences would be due to an email that wasn’t 
received for an administrative error.   
 
The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
D.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 

2 

 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    We  note  the 
applicant’s assertion that he suffered an injustice when he did 
not  receive  an  email  concerning  the  SOU  and  an  expired  TEB 
application; however, he has not provided sufficient evidence to 
support that he was treated any differently than other members in 
a  similar  situation.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  that 
the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and 
that  the  application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the 
submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered 
with this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00720 in Executive Session on 13 September 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00720: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 13 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Mar 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Apr 12, w/atchs. 

 Panel Chair  
 Member 
 Member 

   
    
    

  
  

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
Panel Chair 

 

3